Derek Powazek 🐐I wonder if people using mastodon know that, without section 230, no one could legally afford to run a mastodon instance in the US. Section 230 protects what we do here every day. Politicians threatening 230 are threatening free speech on the internet.
apple502j@fraying There are two provisions called Section 230. Although striking down either of them has significant concerns, I think we should at least distinguish between them.
230(c)(2) is the one that shields providers from liability for blocking or removing contents. This is what GOP hates, and this is what every website relies on for moderation.
230(c)(1) is the one that shields providers from liability for NOT blocking or removing contents. This is still useful, because certain states claim that LGBT related contents must be blocked because they are inappropriate to children. 230(c)(1) effectively nullifies such claims.
FOSTA (and perhaps DMCA) is the one to blame here. It created an exception to 230(c)(1), and guess what, people across the U.S. now demand certain "illegal" things to be outside 230(c)(1) protection, and certain politicians use this effort to ALSO dismantle 230(c)(2).